[zfs-discuss] mixing WD20EFRX and WD2002FYPS in one pool
Hi, after a flaky 8-drive Linux RAID10 just shredded about 2 TByte worth of my data at home (conveniently just before I could make a backup) I've decided to both go full redundancy as well as all zfs at home. A couple questions: is there a way to make WD20EFRX (2 TByte, 4k sectors) and WD200FYPS (4k internally, reported as 512 Bytes?) work well together on a current OpenIndiana? Which parameters need I give the zfs pool in regards to alignment? Or should I just give up, and go 4x WD20EFRX? Secondly, has anyone managed to run OpenIndiana on an AMD E-350 (MSI E350DM-E33)? If it doesn't work, my only options would be all-in-one with ESXi, FreeNAS, or zfs on Linux. Thanks, -- Eugen ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zvol wrapped in a vmdk by Virtual Box and double writes?
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
As for ZIL - even if it is used with the in-pool variant, I don't
think your setup needs any extra steps to disable it (as Edward likes
to suggest), and most other setups don't need to disable it either.
No, no - I know I often suggest disabling the zil, because so many people
outrule it on principle (the evil tuning guide says disable the zil (don't!))
But in this case, I was suggesting precisely the opposite of disabling it. I
was suggesting making it more aggressive.
But now that you mention it - if he's looking for maximum performance, perhaps
disabling the zil would be best for him. ;-)
Nathan, it will do you some good to understand when it's ok or not ok to
disable the zil. (zfs set sync=disabled) If this is a guest VM in your
laptop or something like that, then it's definitely safe. If the guest VM is a
database server, with a bunch of external clients (on the LAN or network or
whatever) then it's definitely *not* safe.
Basically if anything external of the VM is monitoring or depending on the
state of the VM, then it's not ok. But, if the VM were to crash and go back in
time by a few seconds ... If there are no clients that would care about that
... then it's safe to disable ZIL. And that is the highest performance thing
you can possibly do.
It also shouldn't add much to your writes - the in-pool ZIL blocks
are then referenced as userdata when the TXG commit happens (I think).
I would like to get some confirmation of that - because it's the opposite of
what I thought.
I thought the ZIL is used like a circular buffer. The same blocks will be
overwritten repeatedly. But if there's a sync write over a certain size, then
it skips the ZIL and writes immediately to main zpool storage, so it doesn't
have to get written twice.
I also think that with a VM in a raw partition you don't get any
snapshots - neither ZFS as underlying storage ('cause it's not),
not hypervisor snaps of the VM. So while faster, this is also some
trade-off :)
Oh - But not faster than zvol. I am currently a fan of wrapping zvol inside
vmdk, so I get maximum performance and also snapshots.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mixing WD20EFRX and WD2002FYPS in one pool
HI Eugen, On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: Secondly, has anyone managed to run OpenIndiana on an AMD E-350 (MSI E350DM-E33)? If it doesn't work, my only options would be all-in-one with ESXi, FreeNAS, or zfs on Linux. I'm currently running OI 151a7 on an AMD E-350 system (installed as 151a1, I think). I think it's the ASUS E35M-I [1]. I use it as a NAS, so I only know that the SATA ports, USB port and network ports work - sound, video acceleration, etc., are untested. [1] http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_CPU_on_Board/E35M1I/ Jan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mixing WD20EFRX and WD2002FYPS in one pool
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 08:31:23AM -0700, Jan Owoc wrote: HI Eugen, On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: Secondly, has anyone managed to run OpenIndiana on an AMD E-350 (MSI E350DM-E33)? If it doesn't work, my only options would be all-in-one with ESXi, FreeNAS, or zfs on Linux. I'm currently running OI 151a7 on an AMD E-350 system (installed as 151a1, I think). I think it's the ASUS E35M-I [1]. I use it as a NAS, so I only know that the SATA ports, USB port and network ports work - sound, video acceleration, etc., are untested. Thanks, this is great to know. The box will be headless, and run in text-only mode. I have an Intel NIC in there, and don't intend to use the Realtek port for anything serious. I intend to boot off USB flash stick, and runn OI with napp-it. 8 GByte RAM, unfortunately not ECC, but it will do for a secondary SOHO NAS, as data is largely read-only. [1] http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_CPU_on_Board/E35M1I/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mixing WD20EFRX and WD2002FYPS in one pool
On 2012-11-21 16:45, Eugen Leitl wrote: Thanks, this is great to know. The box will be headless, and run in text-only mode. I have an Intel NIC in there, and don't intend to use the Realtek port for anything serious. My laptop based on AMD E2 VISION integrated CPU and Realtek Gigabit had intermittent problems with rge driver (intr count went to about 100k/sec and X11 locked up until I disconnected the LAN), but these diminished or disappeared after I switched to gani driver (source available from internet). OI lacks support for the Radeon chips in my CPU (works as vesavga). And USB3. I intend to boot off USB flash stick, and runn OI with napp-it. 8 GByte RAM, unfortunately not ECC, but it will do for a secondary SOHO NAS, as data is largely read-only. Theoretically, if memory has a hiccup while scrub verifies your disks, it can cause phantom checksum mismatches to be detected. I am not sure about timing of reads and other events involved in further reconstitution of the data - whether the recovery attempt will use the re-read (and possibly correct) sector data or if it will continue based on invalid buffer contents. I guess ZFS being on the safe side should double-check the found discrepancies and those sectors it's going to use to recover a block, at least of the kernel knows it is on non-ECC RAM (if it does), but I don't know if it really does that. (Worthy RFE if not). HTH, //Jim Klimov ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mixing WD20EFRX and WD2002FYPS in one pool
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: A couple questions: is there a way to make WD20EFRX (2 TByte, 4k sectors) and WD200FYPS (4k internally, reported as 512 Bytes?) work well together on a current OpenIndiana? Which parameters need I give the zfs pool in regards to alignment? There is a way, but you don't give the parameters to zfs, see http://wiki.illumos.org/display/illumos/ZFS+and+Advanced+Format+disksOverriding the Physical Sector Size. Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mixing WD20EFRX and WD2002FYPS in one pool
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Timothy Coalson tsc...@mst.edu wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: A couple questions: is there a way to make WD20EFRX (2 TByte, 4k sectors) and WD200FYPS (4k internally, reported as 512 Bytes?) work well together on a current OpenIndiana? Which parameters need I give the zfs pool in regards to alignment? There is a way, but you don't give the parameters to zfs, see http://wiki.illumos.org/display/illumos/ZFS+and+Advanced+Format+disksOverriding the Physical Sector Size. Actually, you may not even need to do that, if the vdev specification contains some disks that report 512 sectors and some that report 4k sectors, it will use 4k sector alignment on all devices in that vdev. So, as long as each vdev you make has at least one EFRX in it, you will get ashift=12, which is what you want. Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel DC S3700
On 11/14/12 12:28, Jim Klimov wrote: On 2012-11-13 22:56, Mauricio Tavares wrote: Trying again: Intel just released those drives. Any thoughts on how nicely they will play in a zfs/hardware raid setup? Seems interesting - fast, assumed reliable and consistent in its IOPS (according to marketing talk), addresses power loss reliability (acc. to datasheet): * Endurance Rating - 10 drive writes/day over 5 years while running JESD218 standard * The Intel SSD DC S3700 supports testing of the power loss capacitor, which can be monitored using the following SMART attribute: (175, AFh). snip All in all, I can't come up with anything offensive against it quickly ;) One possible nit regards the ratings being geared towards 4KB block (which is not unusual with SSDs), so it may be further from announced performance with other block sizes - i.e. when caching ZFS metadata. I can't help thinking these drives would be overkill for an ARC device. All of the expensive controller hardware is geared to boosting random write IOPs, which somewhat wasted on a write slowly, read often device. The enhancements would be good for a ZIL, but the smallest drive is at least an order of magnitude too big... -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel DC S3700
On 2012-11-21 21:55, Ian Collins wrote: I can't help thinking these drives would be overkill for an ARC device. All of the expensive controller hardware is geared to boosting random write IOPs, which somewhat wasted on a write slowly, read often device. The enhancements would be good for a ZIL, but the smallest drive is at least an order of magnitude too big... I think, given the write-endurance and powerloss protection, these devices might make for good pool devices - whether for an SSD-only pool, or for an rpool+zil(s) mirrors with main pools (and likely L2ARCs, yes) being on different types of devices. //Jim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Woeful performance from an iSCSI pool
I look after a remote server that has two iSCSI pools. The volumes for each pool are sparse volumes and a while back the target's storage became full, causing weird and wonderful corruption issues until they manges to free some space. Since then, one pool has been reasonably OK, but the other has terrible performance receiving snapshots. Despite both iSCSI devices using the same IP connection, iostat shows one with reasonable service times while the other shows really high (up to 9 seconds) service times and 100% busy. This kills performance for snapshots with many random file removals and additions. I'm currently zero filling the bad pool to recover space on the target storage to see if that improves matters. Has anyone else seen similar behaviour with previously degraded iSCSI pools? -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Changing a VDEV GUID?
Hi ZFS fellows, I already seen on the archive of the list some of you doing some GUID change of a pool's VDEV, to allow a cloned disk to be imported on the same system as the source. Can someone explain in detail how to achieve that? Has already someone invented the wheel so I would not have to rewrite a tool to do it? Subsidiary: Is there an official response of Oracle in front of such case? How do they officially deal with Binary Copied disks, as it's common to do such copy with UFS to copy SAP environment or Databases... Thanks in advance, Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Woeful performance from an iSCSI pool
On 11/22/12 10:15, Ian Collins wrote: I look after a remote server that has two iSCSI pools. The volumes for each pool are sparse volumes and a while back the target's storage became full, causing weird and wonderful corruption issues until they manges to free some space. Since then, one pool has been reasonably OK, but the other has terrible performance receiving snapshots. Despite both iSCSI devices using the same IP connection, iostat shows one with reasonable service times while the other shows really high (up to 9 seconds) service times and 100% busy. This kills performance for snapshots with many random file removals and additions. I'm currently zero filling the bad pool to recover space on the target storage to see if that improves matters. Has anyone else seen similar behaviour with previously degraded iSCSI pools? As a data point, both pools are being zero filled with dd. A 30 second iostat sample shows one device getting more than double the write throughput of the other: r/sw/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device 0.2 64.00.0 50.1 0.0 5.60.7 87.9 4 64 c0t600144F096C94AC74ECD96F20001d0 5.6 44.90.0 18.2 0.0 5.80.3 115.7 2 76 c0t600144F096C94AC74FF354B2d0 -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
